Pages

Which wizard do you enjoy playing more? The 4e version or the 3.5 version?

In 4e I have not had much fun playing a wizard or any spell caster. I can't put my finger on why that is. Maybe it is just the powers or the number of spells available. It could also be the magic system is different now. Anyone else experience this?

Which wizard do you enjoy playing more? The 4e version or the 3.5 version?

In 4e I have not had much fun playing a wizard or any spell caster. I can't put my finger on why that is. Maybe it is just the powers or the number of spells available. It could also be the magic system is different now. Anyone else experience this?

Its because wizards arent gods anymore, but more in line with the rest of the PC's. You lost power relative to everyone else, which makes it less "fun". Or less "special". The good old boys wizard club uses that line a lot to disguise the fact that they want casters to be flat out better than anyone else.

My wife felt the same way you did, until she got into the strategy of playing a wizard. Now she loves the challenge of setting up the battlefield to help her allies while trying to avoid the attacks that exploit her weaknesses. Once she stopped looking for how her character could end the battle and instead concentrated on how she can contribute to the battle, she said she would never go back to playing a 3e wizard.

I prefer the 4th Wizard over previous editions. I line the four different implement bonuses- staff, book, orb or wand. They also survive better. The Wizard is one of the few classes I have taken to 30th level.

I don't like the Essentials Wizard as much. I don't like being hamstringed into a Evoker or Illusionist role. E Wizard doesn't force this though. I also black magic marker-ed the half damage on a miss on encounters.

One of the nice twists with the E wizard is the Enchanter. He does little to no damage but has actual enchantment effects- a nice twist.

Ever wonder why Gygax and his cronies all played wizard's for the most part? Bigby, Mordekainen, etc. were the original gods of wizardry. Any time I heard a story from those days it inevitably centred around some wizardly character. The wizard's utility and versatility are legendary from earlier editions. Is it any wonder that people miss them?

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

My wife felt the same way you did, until she got into the strategy of playing a wizard. Now she loves the challenge of setting up the battlefield to help her allies while trying to avoid the attacks that exploit her weaknesses. Once she stopped looking for how her character could end the battle and instead concentrated on how she can contribute to the battle, she said she would never go back to playing a 3e wizard.

I would venture to say that this way of thinking is how many people approach the game. Not that it's bad, but it's a little harder to learn how to work together over, I just blow things up.

Ever wonder why Gygax and his cronies all played wizard's for the most part? Bigby, Mordekainen, etc. were the original gods of wizardry. Any time I heard a story from those days it inevitably centred around some wizardly character. The wizard's utility and versatility are legendary from earlier editions. Is it any wonder that people miss them?

Which wizard do you enjoy playing more? The 4e version or the 3.5 version?

In 4e I have not had much fun playing a wizard or any spell caster. I can't put my finger on why that is. Maybe it is just the powers or the number of spells available. It could also be the magic system is different now. Anyone else experience this?

Its because wizards arent gods anymore, but more in line with the rest of the PC's. You lost power relative to everyone else, which makes it less "fun". Or less "special". The good old boys wizard club uses that line a lot to disguise the fact that they want casters to be flat out better than anyone else.

I don't think they were gods before. Even the cleric is the same way. I can understand beefing up the other classes, but the wizard plays very different than before. Maybe it is just the lack of show stopper spells. It also doesn't seem like my character is using magic anymore.

What I mean is that in 4e you have 16 effects, damage dice, movement (pull, slides), and various bonuses. 4e powers seem to be just combinations of those. All the classes do this. So it isn't that the wizard is more powerful, it is that the spell casters are not any different.

I prefer the 4th Wizard over previous editions. I line the four different implement bonuses- staff, book, orb or wand. They also survive better. The Wizard is one of the few classes I have taken to 30th level. I don't like the Essentials Wizard as much. I don't like being hamstringed into a Evoker or Illusionist role. E Wizard doesn't force this though. I also black magic marker-ed the half damage on a miss on encounters. One of the nice twists with the E wizard is the Enchanter. He does little to no damage but has actual enchantment effects- a nice twist.

I agree I would never play an essentials wizard. 4e has a bastardized and incomplete version of the specialist wizard classes.

A) I've always hated prepared casting. It's terrible. 4E lets me play a spontaneous wizard.2) I can't go back to being able to run out of spells. I just can't. Having at-will spells is amazing.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask?
"If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB
"If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave
"WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm
"Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

My wife felt the same way you did, until she got into the strategy of playing a wizard. Now she loves the challenge of setting up the battlefield to help her allies while trying to avoid the attacks that exploit her weaknesses. Once she stopped looking for how her character could end the battle and instead concentrated on how she can contribute to the battle, she said she would never go back to playing a 3e wizard.

Wrecan, this is probably the most insightful comment I have ever read in regards to this issue. Well done!

A) I've always hated prepared casting. It's terrible. 4E lets me play a spontaneous wizard.2) I can't go back to being able to run out of spells. I just can't. Having at-will spells is amazing.

well other editions had optional spell point systems. I agree that the memorization system was tedious at best. On the other hand your character had access to a few dozen spells that he could select per day which made him far more versatile. I just don't see the wizard as a spell caster anymore. To me he is a controller not a wizard wielding magic.

I don't think they were gods before. Even the cleric is the same way. I can understand beefing up the other classes, but the wizard plays very different than before. Maybe it is just the lack of show stopper spells. It also doesn't seem like my character is using magic anymore.

What I mean is that in 4e you have 16 effects, damage dice, movement (pull, slides), and various bonuses. 4e powers seem to be just combinations of those. All the classes do this. So it isn't that the wizard is more powerful, it is that the spell casters are not any different.

You say you don't think Wizards had ultimate power before, and yet you miss the "show stopper spells". If having spells that are effectively an "I win" button doesn't qualify as ultimate power, what does?

Yes, 4E has attempted like never before to put the classes on even ground. I think this is a good thing, as it means you don't have to be using magic to feel special or powerful. How does it not seem like your wizard is doing magic? If you define magic as "really cool stuff that the other characters can't do", then I guess you might be right, but I would recommend a less selfish definition of magic. Your wizard is still blasting foes with pure force, lighting bolts, and fireballs. He is still flying with the power of his mind. He can still teleport, and open gates, and summon fantastic monsters, and...well, the list goes on. My point is that the choice is yours. You can play a wizard like this:

"I use my encounter power...I guess it is called 'fireburst'. It hits all creatures in an area burst 2...I hit the two orcs...they take 3d6 + 9 fire damage...that comes out to 20 fire damage."

or like this:

"I quickly speak the words for Kilgore's Incendiary Surprise, and a burst of flames erupts in the middle of the group of orcs!" [roll for attack and damage]

This is why I find it funny when people say, "The wizard no longer feels like it uses magic." While the all powerful magic is no longer handed to you on a silver platter, the magic is still there. It just requires a little roleplaying...funny, huh?

Yeah, and I tried them, but they were waay to clunky for my liking and still resulted in my being able to run out of spells.

On the other hand your character had access to a few dozen spells that he could select per day which made him far more versatile.

Yeah, but at a certain point, being versatile just doesn't matter to me anymore because I'm never going to use all of those options and don't really care about all of those options. When I play a spellcaster, as when I play any other character, I have a character in mind with a theme that I want to go for, not just a ton of mechanics that tell me what I have available to do. I've just never played a spellcaster that didn't have a specific theme or reason behind every selected spell, and in sticking to those, I just don't have any desire or even need to make use of all of the versatility that I theoretically have. Heck, even with a 4E Wizard I can only barely make myself find a use for their ability to switch out prepared dailies.

I just don't see the wizard as a spell caster anymore. To me he is a controller not a wizard wielding magic.

I'm very sorry for you. =P

Another thing that I love about the 4E Wizard, and really that I love about 4E powers as a whole is that, because 4E is more gamist as opposed to 3.5 being more simulationist, reflavoring is a lot easier and better encouraged, so I feel like I can make my spells even more personalized than they were before. I just don't have as easy of a time making my necrotic botanist in 3.5...

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask?
"If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB
"If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave
"WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm
"Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

I don't think they were gods before. Even the cleric is the same way. I can understand beefing up the other classes, but the wizard plays very different than before. Maybe it is just the lack of show stopper spells. It also doesn't seem like my character is using magic anymore.

What I mean is that in 4e you have 16 effects, damage dice, movement (pull, slides), and various bonuses. 4e powers seem to be just combinations of those. All the classes do this. So it isn't that the wizard is more powerful, it is that the spell casters are not any different.

You say you don't think Wizards had ultimate power before, and yet you miss the "show stopper spells". If having spells that are effectively an "I win" button doesn't qualify as ultimate power, what does?

Yes, 4E has attempted like never before to put the classes on even ground. I think this is a good thing, as it means you don't have to be using magic to feel special or powerful. How does it not seem like your wizard is doing magic? If you define magic as "really cool stuff that the other characters can't do", then I guess you might be right, but I would recommend a less selfish definition of magic. Your wizard is still blasting foes with pure force, lighting bolts, and fireballs. He is still flying with the power of his mind. He can still teleport, and open gates, and summon fantastic monsters, and...well, the list goes on. My point is that the choice is yours. You can play a wizard like this:

"I use my encounter power...I guess it is called 'fireburst'. It hits all creatures in an area burst 2...I hit the two orcs...they take 3d6 + 9 fire damage...that comes out to 20 fire damage."

or like this:

"I quickly speak the words for Kilgore's Incendiary Surprise, and a burst of flames erupts in the middle of the group of orcs!" [roll for attack and damage]

This is why I find it funny when people say, "The wizard no longer feels like it uses magic." While the all powerful magic is no longer handed to you on a silver platter, the magic is still there. It just requires a little roleplaying...funny, huh?

I'm not asking for the wizard to be anymore powerful than the other classes.Yes I see no reason why other classes can't also have show stopper powers. In fact, I think that in 4e characters are all gods even at 1st level. Even a 1st level melee class in 4e can deal huge amounts of damage that would make a wizards fireball look pathetic. So I don't understand that argument. Why take away versatility or creativity with magic for the sake of making all the classes god like?

I really think the entire argument about magic being taken away is a valid one. Magic is not unique anymore.

My friend's wizard seemed pretty magical to me when he used a magical fist of force to punch a beholder out of the sky and into a wall of fire, where our friend's fighter pinned him down.

While only a multiclass wizard, my swordmage seemed pretty magical when he entered the elemental chaos alone and beat an encounter meant for a party by chain-teleporting past all the enemies while magically turning aside attacks, grabbed the wand he came for, and chain-teleported his way back, including a final teleport triggered by dropping to 0 HP taking him through the portal back home where the ritualist on duty closed it up behind him.

There's a lot of really out there powers if you look hard enough, but as for the many that are as you describe: the concise set of specific effects as well as damage dice, area, etc. serve to form as unambiguous of a language as possible: they are just that, a language. It's a pretty easy language to learn, but at first you're still thinking of it from your pre-existing perspective and not really internalizing it and it all seems the same. Once you internalize it, seeing both the differences inherent in the powers themselves as well as due to interactions with other game elements such as other powers, class features, and feats you will start to get a visceral feel for the difference between, say, a fighter pounding an enemy, shoving him back with his shield and pinning him down w/ CC+CS vs a wizard blowing back a wave of enemies with Thunderwave and then booking it because nothing is keeping them back.

They ever were? I must have missed that memo when my fighter would teleport beside them, trigger an antimagic field and then one-shot them, but whatever. Besides 3.5E clerics are superior to 3.5E wizards in every way.

The big difference is that you don't have hundreds upon hundreds of spells to be constantly picking from. The number of powers wizards get is a fraction of the spells a wizard had access to in 3.5E and they are relatively static and don't completely change every time you open your spellbook. It's much closer to playing a 3.5E sorcerer, which can be a lot less work and a lot more fun even if it is noticeably weaker.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

I'm not asking for the wizard to be anymore powerful than the other classes. Yes I see no reason why other classes can't also have show stopper powers.

If the wizard can "stop the show", he's more powerful than the other classes. Nobody else stops shows.

Even a 1st level melee class in 4e can deal huge amounts of damage that would make a wizards fireball look pathetic.

Because a wizard is no longer able to deal more damage than anyone, build walls to stop people dead, and cast spells that improve people's defenses. Now a wizard needs to pick a strategy to implement in combat... just like everyone else.

I really think the entire argument about magic being taken away is a valid one. Magic is not unique anymore.

This is a different argument. now you seem to be complaining about how the powers are described, which is different than how they are run. Again, my wife complained about the same thing when she started. now she doesn't think that wizard powers are similar to the powers of other classes. She appreciates that wizard's are uniquely suited for their role and her spells feel very magical to her.

The versatatility and creativity of 3.5 e wizards vs 4e wizards is an illusion.

You say the old spells could do more and that new ones ar ejust combinations of 16 different status effect.

SO were 3.5 spells, they just didn't have the terminology for them

A 3.5 spell that reduced movement in an area and deald frost damage every turn from raining hail is no different at all than a 4e spell that slows enemies in an area and deals ongoing 10 to creatures that begin their turn inside it

A 3.5 spell that deafens and stuns an enemy and leaves then nausious for 1 round after is just a 4e spell that Stuns and Deafens and enemy untill end of next turn with a target is dazed after effect.

Whats gone is the retarded combinations and silly spells that just ended fights, the handfull of spells and set up spells that actually just MADE YOU BETTER than all the other classes (except cleric)

Other than Raw damage numbers, nothing changed, even stone to flesh can be a spell that grants an ally a dave against pertrify or stun.

The only way the "magic is gone" is if you dont have the imagination to look beyond the power card.

The mage still conjured magical lightening that leaps between foes, still conjures walls of fire and blinds his enemies.

The only argument you're left with is, I had a shiny toy, now he has a shiny toy too, so my shiny toy isnt as good anymore.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

This particular line of questioning always makes me giggle a little. Because the real issue here isn't that the wizard has changed so drastically, its that everything around the wizard changed drastically.

Of all the classes, I felt that the wizard changed the least. They were essentially a framework for hanging powers on (read "spells") in 3.5 and that hasn't really changed. Sure they got at-will spells and such but in essence they remain a ball of individual powers.

What has changed is that fighters/rouges are now also a framework to hang powers on, instead of being the "mundane" ones and just wielding a sword and existing only so that the magical classes have a benchmark as to what "no magic" would look like.

My suggestion is that if you want the feeling that wizards are special again, play a pure essentials game. The Essentials line is great for that - your spell casters get a full array of powers, just like all the classes do now, but the non-magical classes (ie martial) get a fewer number of abilities that are printed in a different format, so that the wizard can feel special again.

I was telling a old friend the other day about a character I made that I love named Morthos. I told him about how Morthos was a Wizard/bard/warlock/artificer and that of all his magical exploits - like quickly thinking to use his speak with dead spell to get information about the group of thugs that just attacked, and then using another spell to appear as a commoner and set up a distraction so the assassin could slip in the back of the tavern the thugs were staying at and scope things out (and possibly assassinate the leader). Then later conjuring his wife into the thick of combat (who happens to be a succubus) to help slay his foes.

After a while into the session story, he responds with: "Oh yeah, great times back then - but that could never be done with this cuddy 4e magic system."

To which I responded: "Dude, that was only a few months ago using 4e..." He had to have me explain each step, and how it can be done in 4e.

Just an anecdote to prove that it all comes from how you build your character and how you choose to roleplay the powers you've got.

My blog - Forced Movement: Play With Confidence.
"I find choice a bit overrated. Once you select a character concept and decide what you want a character to do, most of the choices are made for you. Powers aren't created equal, and there's usually one choice clearly superior to the others. Now this is more true for some classes than others, and the more you optimize the more true it is, but I find it holds." -- thecasualoblivion

I love that my wizard between cantrips and basic battlefield spells and rituals the character is magical all the time.... ping ping ping with a crossbow(3e) or throwing darts(1e) no thank you.

Regarding rituals: - its batwings and eye of newt for the win this makes it feel like a wizard from myth and legend. (and let people forage for ritual components they will do it and use it frequently. )

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

I played a rogue/wizard multiclass in 3.5e in a small group that consisted of a fighter and a barbarian. The wizard always was the one to end fights with big spells, especially at higher level. I always felt bad for our fighter because she only had a few choices to make each round. Hit or.. hit several times. The barbarian was little better really but at least he had his rages and stuff.

In 4e I played a wizard for a time but they didn't appeal to me as much. Not because they aren't as powerful but rather because my tastes had changed. I converted to the Warlock (my wizard was always a bit dark anyway) and to this day I thuroughly enjoy my Fey pact Half Elf Warlock MC Rogue.

I've been playing since the basic days and with my main group my guy has always been pretty much the same kind of character and frankly with 4e I feel he is more 'himself' than any previous itteration. If that makes sence to folks hehe.

Incidently the Fighter is now playing a Deva Avenger and loves it. The Barbarian is thuroughly enjoying the 4e Barbarian.

Yep an all striker group, though my Feylock is heavy on the control side and the Avenger is a bit on the defender side so it's a pretty balance and enjoyable group.

the wizard had options at his disposal. some were VERY powerful. others, not so much.

but his versatility was unsurpassed and greatly dwarfed that of the fighter, who was effectively forced to treat all problems like something that can be sworded.

i'll just copy-paste from here my problems with the caster in 3.5, but a lot of this was fathered in from previous eds:

------------------------------------------------------problems with casters:-too many options. most of the early casters were built to be catch-all archetypes. the wizard is meant to be Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, etc... while many of the non-casters were built around very specific archetypes, like the savage Barbarian or the wuxia-influenced Monk.

the problem with this is the your wizard, cleric, druid or whatnot could change each day if he wanted to if he was Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, John the Horrible Necromancer from down the lane, etc... or worse, in one day simply amalgam the stronger aspects of these and wreck havoc as flying, invisible, huge-sized, man-eating millipede that has a furnace for a stomach.

-too many "i win" or Win/Lose binary spells. a lot of spells simply did stuff... and a lot of this stuff was quicker or more reliable then what the non-casters could do.

want to go over the chasm? polymorph into a bird/fly/teleport/etc...want information from the NPC? change his attitude via magic/force him to give you information via dominate or kill+speak with dead.want to know what is in store for you/what could help? divination. divination. divination.

a lot of these types of spells could be gained quickly enough and scribing a scroll or two of situational spells is a drop in the bucket money-wise. a bit later on, you can easily craft wands / staves for these spells and with splats runestaves that let you convert prepared spells into those on the staff.

-many spells were simply better then the non-spellcaster options. a slightly less then 500 GP collection per PC (assuming a 5 person group) would allow a 5th level wizard to create a wand of Open Lock that has a 100% success rate per lock (50 in total) and can be used at a safe distance to open the locks on most doors without fear of getting hit by the trap. note that is effectively paying 10GP per lock picked, per group member, magical lock or otherwise.

an unseen servant can be used to open the doors. and a wand thereof is quite cheap to make 75GP a PC if you don't feel like risking a PC opening it.

and this is if you're worried about the locks+doors. there are several dungeon bypass spells at later levels that simply allow you to obliterate the door from a safe distance, or just go through the wall adjacent to the door.

a flight spells is in almost all situations better then the jumping or climbing option, and alter self (10 minutes per level) into a creature with a swim speed (lilke a locatah) is far safer then swimming.

i think you can see my point.

and this is simply based on non-combat options alone. in combat a decent spellcaster can usually debuff or cause enough issues to the enemy side in one or two turns that the non-casters are effectively the mop-up crew.

i played the caster because they were the only ones with some versatility built-in.

that versatility, however, was all "i win" buttons. the challenge for playing a wizard was not overcoming a problem, but the ability to prepare his "i wins" in advance, either through spell slots or consumables (potions, scrolls, wands, etc...)

Everyone in D&D can deal damage. i could honestly care less if it's through fireballs, scorching rays, flaming strikes, walls of fire or a flaming longsword.

it's the "... and what else can you do" that i'm interested in.

previous ed wizards could do far too much. 4th ed finally reeled them back and gave some of their toys to other classes. it's not perfect and there are many areas that could be improved, but it's MUCH better then how it used to be.

i'm much happier being part of the team, rather then it's crutch.

that and i no longer spend my first 3 levels being a 2-3 spell wonder then i'm a commoner in a funny hat

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!"
-Cave Johnson, Portal 2

I like having a reasonable amount of hit points and a decent armor class.I like the fact that making good choices in character creation and spell selection doesn't mean I'll destroy the game.I like being balanced with the other PCs at all levels.I like not having to pull out a crossbow because I ran out of spells.I like not having to pick from eighty-seven spells every day.

Having played both a 4e Wizard and a 4e Fighter, I can say, without a doubt, that they are completely different. The Wizard felt magical and scholarly. He could rearange the battlefield. He could summon fire. The fighter felt physical and well... martial. He could wack people in the head for ignoring him. He could bash people back with his shield.

I honestly and truely don't know what you mean when you say the wizard doesn't feel magical.

For my part I think magic users across the board got better in 4E. Wizards are more durable, Clerics are more than heal bots, and NONE of them ever run out o spells and become a sub par archer. These are HUGE gains. And they still wreak terrible damage and death around the battle field and have tremendous effects. Don't think a wizard can end a battle? You haven't seen a genasi blaster in action. As far as effects not being magical enough, there is the entirely open ended caveat of Rituals to exploit, which is as good in my book as being able to make up your own spells was in previous editions. Want Finger of Death? Lvl 15 Ritual, Skill: Arcana (no check) Cost 25,000 gold, Time 1 hour. Effect: Anytime within the next 24 hours you gain the ability to point your finger at any creature with less than 500 hitpoints and command it to die. Creatures with more than 500 total hp immediately lose that many hp, and if bloodied, must make a saving throw or also die. With a little creativity, its all still there. IMO casters are much more advantageous than they were before.

Want Finger of Death? Lvl 15 Ritual, Skill: Arcana (no check) Cost 25,000 gold, Time 1 hour. Effect: Anytime within the next 24 hours you gain the ability to point your finger at any creature with less than 500 hitpoints and command it to die. Creatures with more than 500 total hp immediately lose that many hp, and if bloodied, must make a saving throw or also die. With a little creativity, its all still there. IMO casters are much more advantageous than they were before.

Umm.. wow.Rituals are quite specifically not supposed to be combat effects, much less give a mid paragon character an instant win vs an epic level monster.

Want Finger of Death? Lvl 15 Ritual, Skill: Arcana (no check) Cost 25,000 gold, Time 1 hour. Effect: Anytime within the next 24 hours you gain the ability to point your finger at any creature with less than 500 hitpoints and command it to die. Creatures with more than 500 total hp immediately lose that many hp, and if bloodied, must make a saving throw or also die. With a little creativity, its all still there. IMO casters are much more advantageous than they were before.

Umm.. wow.Rituals are quite specifically not supposed to be combat effects, much less give a mid paragon character an instant win vs an epic level monster.

Well the entire concept of wizard spells has changed and it is part of the reason I don't find the class interesting anymore.

Previously, I really enjoyed collecting and finding unique spell books and scrolls. In 4e, there is no longer that quest for magic that existed before. We now have rituals, but they can't be used in combat.

What I find odd is that a wizard has a spell book, but he can't add any combat spells to it.

You possess a spellbook, a book full of mystic lore in which you store your rituals and your daily and utility spells.

Now, why can't I scribe daily spells and rituals? If by definition my spellbook contains those spells why can't I copy daily spells from books and/ or scrolls that I find ? Why are out of combat rituals the only spells that can be copied?

Even if they allowed some rituals to be cast during combat it would make the game more interesting. Take for example, Lower Water, Knock, Arcane Lock, Tree Shape, Excavation, etc. These are great spells that could be used in creative ways but 4e doesn't allow you to.

I guess it really is the two tiered magic system that has made the wizard less interesting.

Rituals are expressly supposed to fill that niche. I'm sorry that you think something is useless just because you can't explode a man with it. In fact, look at the quote from the PHB you provided: You put rituals in your magic book.

Rituals are expressly supposed to fill that niche. I'm sorry that you think something is useless just because you can't explode a man with it. In fact, look at the quote from the PHB you provided: You put rituals in your magic book.

yes but if they made some of those rituals available in combat I would be a lot more interested in the 4e wizard.

A) I've always hated prepared casting. It's terrible. 4E lets me play a spontaneous wizard.2) I can't go back to being able to run out of spells. I just can't. Having at-will spells is amazing.

I agree with both of these. However I'd rather have Slayers d20 style spell spamming than 4e style.

[My first words on reading PHB1 was 'You mean I can spam Magic Missile?' My second words were... Fireball's a bit... disappointing. But then I hadn't played a wizard since 1e when things like fireball were totally open ended.... Level 18? 18d6 Fireballs.]

I'm going to bend the rules a bit and say, I like the 3.5 sorcerer more (prepared spells for 3.5 wizards annoyed me). 4e wizards are similar to 3.5 sorcerers, but with far less "spells known". To me, it was way too little, and I think the 3.5 sorcerer has far to few spells known as it is. It was one of the hardest things my me to cope with when I played 4e, the power level of everything is leveled way down than it was before. Kind of reminds me of the power level shift in Magic when Kamigawa block was released (which was way weak), in comparison to the previous block, Mirrodin (way OP!).

Not surprisingly, my favorite PC in 4e was a wild sorcerer. It really was great to see Chromatic Orb back.

-I got ran over my a squirrel the other day.
-I'm going to steal my own idea.
-My fruits of labor are not fruits... *sniff* they're vegetables. *sobs*